How we review

What we cover

We organize coverage by the work a firm actually does — practice areas and specific jobs (contract review, e-discovery, legal research, document drafting, and so on). For each, we identify the real contenders rather than padding a list, and we focus on tools a firm could genuinely buy and use today.

How we research

• Primary sources first.We prefer the vendor’s own pricing and product pages, official documentation, and first-hand testing over secondhand roundups.
• Every fact is sourced and dated. Pricing, ratings, and capabilities are tied to a source and the date we checked it, because this market moves fast.
• We don’t fabricate.When a fact can’t be verified — a vendor won’t publish a price, a rating count can’t be confirmed — we say so rather than guess.

How we rate and rank

Tools are judged on the things that matter to the buyer: how well the tool does the specific job, depth in the relevant practice area, pricing and value, transparency, and the quality of the evidence behind a vendor’s claims. Rankings reflect our editorial assessment for a given use case — there is no single “best” tool, which is why our rankings are scoped to a practice area or job, and each pick notes who it’s best for.

Pricing transparency

Pricing is one of the hardest things to pin down in legal software, and we treat a refusal to publish prices as information in itself. We surface what each tool actually costs where we can, and we flag when a vendor keeps it behind a sales call.

Corrections and updates

Pages carry a last-updated date and we revise them as prices and products change. If you spot something wrong or out of date, email editor@legaltechmag.comand we’ll review it.

Independence

Our rankings are editorial and set on merit. If a page ever includes a sponsored placement or an affiliate link, it is clearly labeled where it appears and does not change the editorial order. Sponsorship buys visibility, never a ranking. If you’re a vendor, see advertising.